B16, Meet Marty Haugen

4586549.gifNoting the consternation on the conservative tilt in the blogosphere about these musical/liturgical/pastoral choices for Pope 2008 in Washington DC, especially the Mass of Creation. There is aggrieved wonder that the most overused Mass setting in American history will be trotted out for this liturgy.

One of Jeffrey Tucker’s comments:

On the street, it is known as the “Massive Cremation.”

Conservatory hallways when invaded by traditionalist Catholic musicians? Perhaps. On the street? I think they’re talking about things other than the insulted sensibilities of classical musicians.

Another:

There are parishes that have used nothing but this Mass setting for the last 25 years — the very musical embodiment of the stasis that reigns in American parishes, despite every effort by the Vatican to push change.

Nothing but? Really? Is he serious? Contemporary musicians used to get accused of excessive creativity. You know: new bad music every week. Keep the people in the pews guessing. Trust me: nobody uses this setting constantly.

I have a sympathy for the notion this Mass setting is used far too often. But the caricature of the arguments against Marty Haugen are hysterical.

As my laughter on this one dies down, I have to say the only thing in American church music more overused than the Mass of Creation is the criticism of it.

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Liturgical Music, The Blogosphere. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to B16, Meet Marty Haugen

  1. Jimmy Mac says:

    When in wonder, when in doubt:

    Run in circles, scream and shout!

  2. Gavin says:

    “the only thing in American church music more overused than the Mass of Creation is the criticism of it.”

    Actually I have to agree with that. I wasn’t pleased with the furor over the pope’s music either: Mass of Creation for the Sanctus and Memorial Acclamation is going to ruin the entire visit? Give me a break.

    There’s lots to praise and complain about in the music. A lot of it (City of God??) I wouldn’t use for a children’s Mass. But a lot of the rest of it I would love to have, including the Mass of Creation with an orchestra and large choir. Frankly, I’m interested in seeing the good parts of the Masses and I can ignore the bad parts.

    Similarly I had to deal with an angry old woman complaining about our use of a Latin hymn during Lent. Finally I said, “I see no reason for you to have an entire Mass of music which you love and then complain to me about the one hymn you don’t.” There’s a lot of music in the Masses that will make many factions happy. But it won’t please anyone who’s more centered on hatred of this or that music than they are in love of their own genre. It will expose a lot of the cranks in EITHER side of the music wars.

  3. RP Burke says:

    While the Mass of Creation is an amateurish mess — the voice leading in the choral parts, for example, wouldn’t have passed muster in my long-ago comp and theory class for nonmajors — it is far from the worst setting of the Mass out there. Its major practical problem is that it’s just shopworn down to the hub.

  4. Tony Neria says:

    I’ve been the choir director at my church for eight years now and have yet to use “Mass of Creation” for a regular Sunday liturgy or Feast. I have used it occasionally for a funeral liturgy (at the request of the family). The reason MoC is so popular is because it is familiar—and people love familiar melodies that can sung by heart. It’s not bad or of the devil. It is just used too much. I’m sure Marty Haugen himself doesn’t use it that often.

    As for the music for the Papal visit— (Beethoven’s 9th Symphony for the entrance of the clergy!)…that is so weird…we just performed that symphony last weekend for our processional!

  5. Tony says:

    We’re doing Mass of Creation for Vigil and Easter Sunday. But we’re doing the Latin Chant setting of Jubilate Deo (the one found in the OCP Heritage Missal) on Holy Thursday.

    We have been trying to get our priest to chant his parts in Latin, but he’s not comfortable, so I’m going to do the parts that I’m allowed to that he won’t, and he’ll speak the rest in English.

    It was neat last year, and it’ll be neat this year. Last year, after we sang Pange Lingua, an older lady came up to me with tears in her eyes and said: “Thank you, I haven’t sung that since I was a little girl!”.

    So are we making a positive “new liturgical movement”?

  6. Liam says:

    Well, the news today is that the MoC is being replaced by chant, after the papal MC reviewed the programming suggestions with Mr Stehle.

  7. Marty Haugen says:

    For twenty plus years I have been told, mainly anonymously through the internet, how I have been personally responsible for destroying Roman Catholic worship. I have never responded; however, I wish to offer a few comments now.

    First of all, although I am not Roman Catholic, I have a deep love and respect for and faith in the worship tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. My own hesitancy about joining the Church is not about its eucharistic theology, but rather around the unwillingness of the Church to commission, ordain and welcome all humans as Jesus did–male and female, married and unmarried, saints and sinners. I believe that the Church, God’s people and all of creation have suffered from this omission.

    I do not think of my own music as central or important to Roman Catholic worship, present or future. I began writing as a parish musician; I still keep the vision that to be “catholic” is to learn and love and embrace the best of the past tradition and to welcome the “best” of what is new, as Gods speaks through all cultures and expressions (see “Lumen Gentia”). I leave it to communities and to the Holy Spirit that will (more than us, thank God) guide the future choices that will last.

    I had nothing to do with the choice of “Mass of Creation” for a Papal Mass. Having said that, I believe that attacks upon Tom Stehle in his efforts to engage a congregation with what he hoped would be familiar and meaningful to them (using parts of the liturgy with currently approved texts) were unfair, un-Christian and beneath those of us who truly care about how God speaks through our Sacraments.

    Marty Haugen

    • David Meyer says:

      Mr. Haugen,
      My issue with you is that your music is objectively horrible as liturgical music. You should be embarrassed and ashamed. Go ahead and write jingles for commercials, but please stay away from the Catholic mass. Your banal, trite, hippie campfire ballads will go down in history as the most embarrassing stain in the history of liturgical music. It is sad that you have let yourself be deluded into thinking you have talent. I would love to see you have a little sit down with Thomas Tallis or Palestrina and play “Gather Us In”. What do you think they would say? BE ASHAMED SIR.

      • Todd says:

        An interesting sentiment, Mr Meyer. Your assessment of music for singing at worship is your own, and in a distinct minority, it seems. Catholics continue to program music composed by Mr Haugen and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it. That impotence fuels the irrational dislike, I suspect.

        One good question I have for you, sir: what do you expect to achieve by parading an ignorance of musical genres and by insulting a person you do not know?

      • David Meyer says:

        It is not my sentiment, it is objective. In the same way a tire mark on the road is not good art, and the Mona Lisa is. These are objective realities.
        “there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it.”
        Not true. My Church will not allow the trite nonsense of Haugen. My children will never be abused by that awful music.
        As far as what I want to accomplish, just read my comment. It speaks for itself. I want to tell Marty that he is not musically talented, and his music is an embarrassment. I do not mean to insult, but simply speak the truth.Telling someone the truth is never a bad thing. It is an Emperors New Clothes scenario. The side effect is also that others reading this in the future can read my comment and see a view they might agree with, and not feel they need to be cowed by relativists who insist liturgical music is a matter of taste when it is obviously not.
        Marty writes silly hippie love ballads that would barely work as showtunes in a high school play. It is not liturgical music, and no one, not even you thinks that it is. You might want to play it during mass, but you know it isn’t liturgical music. We could play Katie Perry during mass as well, and it wouldn’t make it liturgical music.

      • Todd says:

        It seems you have redefined “objective.” I’m not convinced about your intention not to insult. Your writing insists another person be embarrassed and ashamed. That seems to be the purpose of an insult.

        The truth is that your children will grow up. If they remain Catholic, they will likely be exposed to Mr Haugen’s music. Likewise millions of Catholic children all over the world. There is nothing you can do to change this. Nothing at all, barring imprisonment in your home and local parish that does things the way you prefer.

        You have resurrected an eight-year-old thread on another person’s site. You have not been accurate in your portrayal of other comments. You don’t seem to have a grasp on musical genres and significant differences among them. You don’t seem to have a sense of what liturgical music is. You have a platform here, but I doubt it is doing you or your “cause” any credit. Are any of these assessment of mine not true?

      • David Meyer says:

        “You have a platform here, but I doubt it is doing you or your “cause” any credit.”
        Then why bother responding? My goal was not to talk to Todd.
        My cause was to say something to Marty Haugen, after finding that he himself left a comment in a thread on a blog. And this after searching for his name on Google. Also my point was to leave a comment that others doing a similar search might find, and they could see something reasonable, rather than the pandering from you and others here.

        “The truth is that your children will grow up. If they remain Catholic, they will likely be exposed to Mr Haugen’s music. Likewise millions of Catholic children all over the world. There is nothing you can do to change this. ”
        I really don’t get your bizarre insistence on this. No, my children will not likely be exposed to his music, other than the occasional funeral or wedding. And when they are on occasion, they are embarrassed to hear it in a mass, as all non-brainwashed people are embarrassed of it. So yes, there is something small I can do to change things. 6 children is small but its the best I can do.

        And as for the other millions of children… yeah… and? What does it prove that something is widespread? If malaria is widespread does that show malaria is a great thing?
        For a relativist you sure believe what you are saying is absolute. Sheesh. Ironic really.

      • Liam says:

        http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/14402/in-honor-of-advent-and-the-incessant-playing-of-secular-hymns#Item_2

        PS: Marty Haugen won’t see this thread unless he asked to be notified of comments because it’s 8 years old and WordPress doesn’t automatically notify folks of comments…

  8. Todd says:

    Thanks, Marty, for visiting and for offering your insightful comments.

  9. Brian says:

    Marty, I’m no fan, but however much I disagree with you theologically and aesthetically, I share your umbrage at the lack of charity so often connected with the criticism of the liturgical Trads.” I agree with the arguments of the Trads, and I think that Catholic theology and teaching are more clearly communicated in the pre-conciliar Mass. But many of my brothers and sisters fail to tell the truth in love, which can be hard to do with a turned-up nose.

    The other important point is that Marty Haugen would never have been accused of “destroying Roman Catholic worship” had his music not been repeatedly chosen for use in said worship.

    I’m trying to arrange a discussion of liturgy on my BlogTalkRadio show for April 26th that will bring together both sides for a charitable discussion of these issues. I hope I can pull this off. Ironically (or not), Todd has agreed to appear, but one leading blogger declined, citing a preference for the written word, while another has yet to respond to my e-mail.

  10. Todd says:

    “The other important point is that Marty Haugen would never have been accused of “destroying Roman Catholic worship” had his music not been repeatedly chosen for use in said worship.”

    It might also be said that accusation would never have been rendered had complaining Catholics as a lot been less of a bunch of buttheads.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that musical quality is a local thing. Pastors come and go. Priorities get shifted. Parishioners move from place to place.

    I’m convinced the perception of lack of musical quality is due less to selling off plainsong in favor of contemporary music. More likely, musical quality rises and falls more sharply on the parish level. And across the continent, musical quality was never very high before the council and has improved slowly since.

    Also keep in mind that parishes without qualified music directors (by practically any definition of the term) outnumber parishes with them anywhere from 4-1 to 20-1.

    You can’t legislate quality.

  11. Tony says:

    Blaming Marty for the decline in the reverence of the Mass (which I believe has happened in the intervening years between the promulgation of the Novus Ordo and today) is like blaming the gun for killing somone during an armed robbery.

    Like I recently stated on my blog, one way I judge liturgical music is if you can imagine yourself on a carousel horse while you are singing /listening to it, it’s not appropriate for the Holy Mass.

    “Leapin the mountains…. bounding the hills….”

  12. Todd says:

    Interesting example, Tony, as that song you quote is based on Scripture: the Song of Songs.

    Another factor is the ability of musicians to play it. With some effort and a mood for satire, I can damage any number of songs to the point you’d never want to sing them again. Unskilled musicians can do this without effort.

  13. Charles in CenCA says:

    Would that Mr. Haugen had been content to let his music speak on behalf of his personal ecclesial philosophy. To whit, I have defended the merit of texts such as “All Are Welcome” against all sorts of charges such as heterodoxy, etc. Like another poster, the de facto reality that MoC is the apparent, pre-eminent default Ordinary setting, hasn’t compelled me to use it on Sundays as well. When I happen upon pieces authored/composed by Mr. Haugen, I give them a just look through and audition just as I do whether it originated from the pen of Lassus, Lambilotte or Lauridsen- each judged upon its own intrinsic merit as I deem that to be.
    However, all that said, for Mr. Haugen to formally state his personal convictions that the institution (The Church Christ founded) that he has purposefully benefited financially from throughout his career, starting even as a “parish musician,” is essentially at odds and in error with Jesus Christ’s commission (as Mr. Haugen sees it) as regards Holy Orders, seems intellectually dishonest at the least, hypocritcal at the worst. Does he not receive royalties every time a publisher reprints “All Are Welcome” in their hymnal or a recording of it is sold or played on a commercial broadcast? But yet, he does not believe, in fact, that “all are welcome” in the Roman Catholic Church? Hello?
    Wow, two great quotes in one newsday cycle: Barack Obama wouldn’t want to see his two daughters “punished” by giving birth even though he taught them the merits of abstinence. And “I do not think of my own music as central or important to Roman Catholic worship, present or future.” Then why is Mr. Haugen also on the stump at every NPM or Pax Christi convention replete with product line? Who do they think are buying their hope, promises and product? People who are steadfast in their convictions to their God and their Church? Or those subject to cultic and populist nature of consumerism at its most marketable?
    Thank you, Mr. Haugen. Now I have to measure my own convictions about whether to program “All Are Welcome” ever in the future again. And if you think that’s a good thing, we’re definitely not on the same page.

  14. Todd2 says:

    Agree with Todd1 and Tony whole-heartedly. As a RC, user of MoC at times, am somewhat embarrassed of the Catholic musicians’ uncharitable comments. Charles, what exactly is the point of your message? As a reader following the RPINET forum, just today you said, “Neither of these posts merit further discussion because they’re both clouded by very uncharitable sentiments, rather than salient points about fairly serious concerns that do stem from “lex orandi, lex credenti.”
    Sorry. One cheap shot shouldn’t warrant the utterance of another.” …speaking on a thread that mirrors this one. Hmmmm….

    I extend my thanks to Jeffrey Tucker for his insight that starts this discussion and Mr. Stehle for stepping out and programming acclamations that will encourage the whole Papal community to sing a song they CAN sing. It is to bad that the MC might be crumbling to music that will make the congregation be spectators only…sigh.

    Thank you, Marty, for your contributions. As you are well aware, not everyone is going to like everything you publish and that is OK; but, uncharitableness is unexcuseable.

  15. Liam says:

    While I cannot speak for Charles, I will say that I understood his comments here to be a sincere reaction about integrity, something quite unlike the brief race-card spat over at RPINET.

    Of course, there are other options to MoC that Catholic congregations can sing. It’s not like MoC is the only game in town (and I suspect the inevitability of it is what’s being most questioned underneath all that unhelpful ad hominem crap – and that underlying questioning itself is a good thing, which should be expressed in better ways).

    In any event, this all goes bye-bye when the new Missal is introduced in a few years.

  16. Charles in CenCA says:

    Dear Todd 2,
    What Liam said.
    I really did not regard my observation of a cognitive dissonance (if only in my mind) as a “cheap shot.”
    I was not amused when some of our colleagues fabricated their ersatz “Moratorium” group on H/H music. I found that extremely uncharitable and have said so on forums elsewhere consistently.
    I do grant that in another forum I have responded to another composer’s public polemics with what could be termed clearly “ad hominem” characterizations; but this issue clearly challenged my sense of what ethics and integrity come into play in the high stakes marketplace of “new Catholic music.”
    Hope this clears it up for you. If you feel I’m being morally inconsistent, I apologize.

  17. Gavin says:

    I extend my thanks to Jeffrey Tucker for his insight that starts this discussion and Mr. Stehle for stepping out and programming acclamations that will encourage the whole Papal community to sing a song they CAN sing. It is to bad that the MC might be crumbling to music that will make the congregation be spectators only…sigh.

    Todd2, you’re the first individual I’ve run across who seems to think that’s the only ordinary any Catholic can sing. Let’s not forget that EVERY level of Church governance has demanded each and every Catholic know Gloria VIII and Sanctus & Agnus Dei XVIII. Anyway, I think the Community Mass by Proulx is pretty close to also being known by all Catholics anywhere. And there’s also some pretty decent responsorial Masses out there if one is into that sort of thing. And of course heaven forbid we should have the congregation sing anything new or let them listen to part of the “vast patrimony” of choral music.

    I think you need to read this blog more often to catch Todd 1’s comments on pragmatism.

  18. Pingback: Motivations For Making a Living « Catholic Sensibility

  19. Tony says:

    Marty Haugen Says:
    1 April 2008 at 12:52 am

    Heh. :)

    Interesting example, Tony, as that song you quote is based on Scripture: the Song of Songs.

    This reminds me of a story my pastor tells about a Christmas he spent out of town at a different parish.

    The liturgist there had gotten the great idea using a rendition of “Edelweiss” with appropriate scriptural verses for Christmas.

    Our priest said that during this song, all he could think of was:

    Blossom of snow

    May you bloom and grow,

    Bloom and grow forever,

    Edelweiss, Edelweiss,

    Bless my homeland forever.

    Sung for Nazis in The Sound of Music.

    So did this song contribute to a prayerful Mass experience? Did it bring (at least my pastor) closer to God?

    So if I put scripture to the jingle: “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”, I can use it for Mass?

  20. Gavin says:

    I’ll follow suit with Tony. Marty Haugen in fact has a website, which is a bit of a give away on that being a fake.

  21. Todd says:

    Tony, carousel music and bluegrass are two divergent styles. If you mean to say that “Lord of Glory” doesn’t sound like “church music,” for some Catholics, you have a point. But not everybody.

    I should also point out that you quoted words; you didn’t hum the tune.

    “Sung for Nazis in The Sound of Music.”

    My recollection is that it was sung for patriotic Austrians as an act of defiance to the Nazis.

    “So if I put scripture to the jingle: “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”, I can use it for Mass?”

    I wouldn’t use it, if that’s what you’re asking me.

    “I’ll follow suit with Tony. Marty Haugen in fact has a website, which is a bit of a give away on that being a fake.”

    I saw that premise suggested on the RPI discussion site. I didn’t see anything on the post that would lead me to think something’s fishy about it. I’m afraid I don’t follow the reasoning on this being a “give away” (sic).

  22. Gavin says:

    Well, you have the e-mail, I suppose. All I’m saying is that one tends to affix a web site to their blog posts, if one has a web site. His web site further has such things as articles and music samples, and I’m at a loss as for why he wouldn’t want to advertise such things. But hey, you have the e-mail addy, so I’ll leave it at your call. As for me, I don’t have much to say to Mary Haugen, real or fake. He’s a decent composer, but he’s not the world of Church music to me. And like others who despise the SMMMH, I think the unhealthy obsession with him and his work is just that: unhealthy obsession. I’m just pointing out what is (to me) obvious.

  23. Anne says:

    “…or Mr. Haugen to formally state his personal convictions that the institution (The Church Christ founded) that he has purposefully benefited financially from throughout his career, starting even as a “parish musician,” is essentially at odds and in error with Jesus Christ’s commission (as Mr. Haugen sees it) as regards Holy Orders, seems intellectually dishonest at the least, hypocritcal at the worst. Does he not receive royalties every time a publisher reprints “All Are Welcome” in their hymnal or a recording of it is sold or played on a commercial broadcast? But yet, he does not believe, in fact, that “all are welcome” in the Roman Catholic Church? Hello?….Thank you, Mr. Haugen. Now I have to measure my own convictions about whether to program “All Are Welcome” ever in the future again. And if you think that’s a good thing, we’re definitely not on the same page.”

    Chuck, Chuck, Chucky!! Was it really necessary to say all that? Do you think that these comments, in any way make the RC faith inviting? There are many of us born and raised Roman Catholic who believe the Church suffers because of the valid points he spoke about. VII asked us to reach out in charity in order to overcome whatever it is that divides us. Mr Haugen has inspired many Christians over the years to sing, worship and pray over the years. For this we should be grateful even if his style is not our preference. I truly don’t care how much money he is making. That’s not my concern. My concern is that we should be servants to one another to bring about the Kingdom.
    Actually, this whole discussion (I broke my promise to myself and jumped in)has only given me a better appreciation for the works and the person of Marty Haugen.

  24. Todd says:

    “All I’m saying is that one tends to affix a web site to their blog posts, if one has a web site.”

    I don’t require it; it’s an optional field. Given the amount of bile spewed in his direction, I can understand why he wouldn’t — though it’s easy enough to google him and find most anything you’d want. A careful impostor might have posted the site.

    “His web site further has such things as articles and music samples, and I’m at a loss as for why he wouldn’t want to advertise such things.”

    Who knows? Humility is an unfamiliar virtue to St Blog’s. Self-promotion has never struck me as one of his qualities.

  25. My dear sweet Anne,
    I wish I could say I enjoy being dubbed “Chuck,” but I’m actually “Charlie” to those who know and love me (perhaps few and far between ;-)
    But “Chucky?” Anne, I’m way to old, fat and bleary-eyed to be associated (by insinuation or innocence) with a malevolent, murderous doll!

    Now to the point- what it necessary? If the post was written by Mr. Haugen, yes, I felt it necessary. It’s not about “how much money.” It’s not really about “money” per se at all.
    It’s about the wisdom of biting a hand that feeds you. I don’t question Mr. Haugen’s morality and you darn well know I give his work the scrutiny and respect that I provide all pieces that I’m charged with employing at public worship.
    If the post was proffered by a Tokyo Rose, then I fully apologize to Mr. Haugen in this public forum.

  26. Todd says:

    “It’s about the wisdom of biting a hand that feeds you.”

    True enough.

    But don’t be deceived that the institutional aspect of Catholicism has much of anything to do with feeding us.

  27. Tony says:

    VII asked us to reach out in charity in order to overcome whatever it is that divides us.

    And I think that this was mis-interpreted by well meaning people to make Catholic worship more Protestant-like to appeal to Protestants.

    Removing the altar rail, minimizing the role of the clergy, removing the images, eliminating the Latin, minimizing the crucified Christ, moving our tabernacles, minimizing the denouncement of sin, pushing the Mother of God into the background… I could go on and on.

    What we effectively have done is turn Catholicism into just another Protestant denomination. And why would I want to attend a wannabe Protestant church when I could choose the real thing.

    The preference for Mr. Haugen’s music is symptomatic of something much more insidious and pervasive.

    The churches, religious orders and seminaries who are seeing the greatest uptick in members are the ones who are the most authentically Catholic. I don’t believe that requires an adherence to the extraordinary form (like Jeffrey Tucker), though I would like to see the extraordinary form treated more like extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

    Ad Fr. Z says: “Save the liturgy, save the world. Read the black and do the red”.

    Also we need to understand what “full and active participation” means.

  28. Todd says:

    “Also we need to understand what “full and active participation” means.”

    Been there. Done that. We’ve covered that over and over on this site as we’ve looked at the documents. It’s known as reading the black.

  29. Anne says:

    TONY SAID:
    “And I think that this was mis-interpreted by well meaning people to make Catholic worship more Protestant-like to appeal to Protestants.

    Removing the altar rail, minimizing the role of the clergy, removing the images, eliminating the Latin, minimizing the crucified Christ, moving our tabernacles, minimizing the denouncement of sin, pushing the Mother of God into the background… I could go on and on.

    What we effectively have done is turn Catholicism into just another Protestant denomination. And why would I want to attend a wannabe Protestant church when I could choose the real thing.”

    This is false and this kind of thinking should be banished from our parishes and our lives. I just don’t get how some Catholics can receive the Body and Blood of Christ then go out and say such things about others with whom we share our baptism. I don’t get it…or on second thought maybe you don’t get it.

  30. Todd says:

    I agree, Anne. It is a politicization of the liturgy. Essentially, it adopts as Gospel the notion that anything our opponents do as antithetical to what we do. It’s a sort of self-definition by subtraction. I’m surprised that somebody hasn’t realized that Buddhists chant and have monasteries, so maybe we can’t have that in Catholicism.

    Vatican II was clear about reforming aspects of religion that contributed to superstition. “Looking like Protestants” is certainly one of the biggest ones we have.

  31. Gavin says:

    Wait, so Tony’s wrong? When people say to me that the protestants use drums and guitars at Mass and therefore we should, they’re NOT trying to mimic protestantism?

  32. Liam says:

    Gavin

    It appears Tony should be banished. Some are welcome.

  33. Anne says:

    Liam, I said “this kind of thinking should be banished”…not Tony.

  34. Tony says:

    Todd, I know you cover it. What I said was: “We need to understand…”.

    Anne said:
    This is false and this kind of thinking should be banished from our parishes and our lives. I just don’t get how some Catholics can receive the Body and Blood of Christ then go out and say such things about others with whom we share our baptism. I don’t get it…or on second thought maybe you don’t get it.

    What do you disagree with?

    Has Catholic worship become more Protestant-like since Vatican II?

    Do you believe calling some styles of Catholic worship “Protestant-like” is an insult?

    Do you believe the Protestant form of worship is deficient?

    I don’t succumb easily to the politically correct “heckler’s veto”.

    I love my separated bretheren (and sisteren for those PC among us). However, I believe that the fullness of the faith and the most complete transmission of God’s Truth resides in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

    This means that if you are not Catholic, your worship is deficient. Some groups have a little of God’s Truth. Some groups have a lot. Some groups have most of it, but only one has all of it.

    Why would you jettison a rich, symbolic and yes, sensuous Catholic worship so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who define themselves by being “not Catholic”?

    Todd said:
    Vatican II was clear about reforming aspects of religion that contributed to superstition. “Looking like Protestants” is certainly one of the biggest ones we have.

    I don’t understand what you mean by this? Is “looking like Protestants” a superstition? Or are you referring to something else as superstition? If you are, please be specific about it.

  35. Todd says:

    “Has Catholic worship become more Protestant-like since Vatican II?”

    No, it’s become more Catholic.

    “Do you believe calling some styles of Catholic worship “Protestant-like” is an insult?”

    Generally, yes, depending on from whom it’s coming.

    “Do you believe the Protestant form of worship is deficient?”

    It’s more than deficient. Many Protestants do not have a sacramental system. They do have baptism and they have the Word of God. That’s not chickenfeed.

    “I don’t succumb easily to the politically correct “heckler’s veto”.”

    Good. The day my commentariat starts looking like Ten Reasons and other sites, is the day I close up shop.

    “This means that if you are not Catholic, your worship is deficient.”

    That’s a good-enough sentiment for a Catholic. But it ignores the sacramental validity of the East. Even knowledgeable Catholics concede our differences on primacy don’t affect the sense of Eastern liturgy.

    “Why would you jettison a rich, symbolic and yes, sensuous Catholic worship so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who define themselves by being “not Catholic”?”

    I suppose the question is why would you. I haven’t jettisoned anything.

    “Is “looking like Protestants” a superstition?”

    Bingo.

  36. Todd2 says:

    Gavin said: “Todd2, you’re the first individual I’ve run across who seems to think that’s the only ordinary any Catholic can sing. Let’s not forget that EVERY level of Church governance has demanded each and every Catholic know Gloria VIII and Sanctus & Agnus Dei XVIII. Anyway, I think the Community Mass by Proulx is pretty close to also being known by all Catholics anywhere. And there’s also some pretty decent responsorial Masses out there if one is into that sort of thing. And of course heaven forbid we should have the congregation sing anything new or let them listen to part of the “vast patrimony” of choral music.”

    Gavin, you misquote me. I never said that MoC is the ONLY ordinary a Catholic can sing. I merely said (that because MoC is so widely known) it is one that the congregation will know and thus sing. I’ve seen it time and time again were musicians decide to impress the clergy and viewers with unapproachable, new settings for the congregants because the music is complex, but yet beautiful to listen to. It is too bad that some believe that the use of MoC does not meet the expectations worthy of the Mass celebrated by the Pope. So let us forget about the people and let the show begin!!

  37. Dale Burke says:

    OMG – you mean all these nasty posts are from people who claim to have JESUS with in their hearts and they actually “worship” in the same church as I? I’ll worship with Marty ANY day. God BLESS Marty! Would LOVE to see the look on these “saints” faces when/if they get to heaven and WOW – see none other than MARTY HAUGEN:-)

  38. Pingback: These Days in the Culture of Complaint | Catholic Sensibility

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s